Rebuttal, by JeanMarie Le Croze
by A.C.Meadows
Summary: Leroux cited one 'M. J. Le Croze' as a 'former collaborator' in the introduction to 'The Phantom of the Opera.' Why former? Could this be the reason? Not in the same 'universe' as 'The Blindfold.' Primarily an exercise in archaic writing style.


This is primarily an exercise in writing style. It does not exist within the same 'universe' as 'The Blindfold' so it won't give anything away if you're reading that story. I just thought it was interesting that Gaston Leroux cited one 'M. J. Le Croze' as a 'former collaborator' in the introduction to his novel and it got me thinking. Leroux mentioned a few actual persons in his introduction, but I'm assuming Le Croze was one of his fictional characters.

Anyway, what follows is an imaginary newspaper article submitted by M. Le Croze after the publication of Leroux's novel. Again, no offense intended to anyone. I deeply admire Gaston Leroux's work. This is just a bit of fun.

* * *

**Rebuttal, by Jean-Marie Le Croze**

**An Answer to Gaston Leroux's 'Phantom of the Opera'.**

Conscious as I am of the unprecedented sensation created by the recent publication of M. Gaston Leroux's latest tale of gothic horror, I feel myself duty bound, in the interests of honor and personal integrity, to lay before the public certain facts having to do with the events depicted in that work.

It is not only as a gentleman interested in the advancement of truth that I take up my pen, but as one who has found to his undying shame that his name has been appended to that unabashed work of fiction as a collaborator in its production, albeit a 'former' collaborator. That I broke from M. Leroux within three weeks of the commencement of his research is a fact I can only attest to by my own word, yet I trust that this rebuttal will serve to give credence to that protestation as well as to illustrate my reasons for so doing.

When M. Leroux came to me in the summer of 1909 and requested that I aid him in his preparation of an exploratory work revolving around the attempted abduction of the artist Christine Daae which occurred more than thirty years ago, I was, as you may readily suppose, enthusiastic for the scheme. It was my expectation that Leroux intended to present the events in a medium of absolute fact, in accord with his standing as a respected journalist. It soon became apparent, however, that fact held little interest for him and our differences shortly became irreconcilable. Thus the rupture occurred which has prevented our being on speaking terms ever since, I humbly regret to say.

That there was an artist named Christine Daae is a certainty, and that an attempt was made to abduct her from the National Academy of Music which ended in the death of one of this country's most distinguished noblemen is equally certain. But therein lay the principle remnants of truth in M. Leroux's 'dreadful and veracious story' to quote his own words.

I observe that an attempt has been made by Leroux to disguise the identity of the titled family involved in the case and this is perhaps not unwise, for should he have been so bold as to reveal the actual name of the young nobleman who endeavored to take flight with Mme Daae and was later found responsible for his elder brother's death, the consequences may have been extreme. Indeed, I believe that Leroux altered the name at the very last minute prior to publication in view of a lawsuit threatened by the gentleman's family. Certainly I shall not endanger my own purse by publishing it here, but shall instead confine myself to the use of the pseudonym put forward by my former colleague, 'Raoul de Chagny'.

It will be noticed that I refer to Christine Daae as Madame, not Mademoiselle, Daae. Such is another of Leroux's deviations. The artist was in fact married at the time to one Erik Daae, her maiden name being Latour. She was of French extraction from the region of Normandy. Her husband was of course Swedish as his name suggests. The couple met in Paris shortly after the siege which so disordered our fair city and during which Erik Daae suffered a serious facial injury which disfigured him for life. In spite of the efforts of surgeons practiced in the art of the Indian operation, his features were left so ravaged that the unfortunate gentleman felt compelled to obscure his injuries behind a flap of leather. Remarkably, it was after the acquirement of this affliction that the young man met his wife to be, Christine Latour, who was at that time studying at the Conservatory. The two were married soon thereafter.

Approximately two years later, January 1875, the new opera house was officially opened and Christine Daae, nee Latour, commenced her contract with the management. She was, as M. Leroux has cared to note, an extraordinarily gifted artist. However, her promising career was cut unduly short by the strain of the events which conspired to rob the young woman of her peace of mind and feelings of security. Leroux places these events at around the turn of 1881-82, when the management changed hands. Certainly it provides greater scope for the intrigues he has been pleased to relate, but in truth, the tragedy upon which those fictitious events are loosely based occurred much earlier in the March of 1876.

It was Christmas 1875 when the viscount 'Raoul de Chagny' accompanied his brother to Paris for an extended season before embarking on a naval career. At one-and-twenty, his ambition was only equaled by his ardor for the fair sex. Failing to see the danger, his brother encouraged him in the pursuit of both and it was in this frame of mind that the amorous young viscount formed the acquaintance of Mme Daae, whose talents charmed and captivated him. It is perhaps as well to note that Christine Daae was not a handsome woman by any means; in appearance she was reckoned rather plain. But her voice was as few could boast having ever heard the like before.

It did not take the viscount's brother long to recognize the symptoms of serious attachment in the young man, nor did it long escape the notice of the lady's husband. It is my understanding that throughout the entire period, Mme Daae behaved perfectly in keeping with her status as a married woman and never gave the viscount the least encouragement. Yet, his attentions became increasingly marked, to the extent that reports began to circulate of violent disputes between the viscount and his brother on the subject of Christine Daae until it seemed that a definite rupture had taken place between these two formerly inseparable young men.

Erik Daae, in the meantime, endeavored to support his wife through this trialsome period by his frequent attendance at the Opera, to comfort and console her with his presence. His singular appearance, however, shrouded by a mask, served to exacerbate the intense covetousness of 'M. de Chagny', moving him to decry Christine Daae's marital status all the more and to insist that it was necessary for her happiness that he remove her from the clutches of such an inveterate 'monster'.

This opinion, unshared by anyone else, supplied the viscount's motive in forming his plan to carry the young woman off by force of will, to make her his mistress and later his wife should her husband divorce her. It is my humble opinion that the young man had no sober intention of ever marrying the lady; had his machinations succeeded, his attachment to Mme Daae would have lessened as quickly as his attachment to his title and inheritance increased. But, in the warmth of his youthful passion, 'Raoul de Chagny' thought of nothing else than seizing the wife of Erik Daae.

He did not perform this maneuver in any grandiose manner akin to the imaginative depiction by Leroux; the young man simply waited for the artist in her dressing-room, subjected her to a dose of chloroform and carried her swiftly from the building before anyone could prevent him. Thereafter he placed the unconscious woman in a carriage and made off with her according to a prearranged route toward the eastern border. It was the lady's husband and the viscount's brother who went in pursuit, catching up with them only a few miles out of Paris where an altercation took place, resulting in the death of the older brother as mentioned before.

There was an inquest naturally. Erik Daae testified that 'M de Chagny' fired upon him and missed, instead dealing his brother a lethal blow. Having wrested the pistol from the excitable young man, he managed to ensure his compliance and the unhappy players in this unfortunate tragedy placed the dead man's body in the carriage where the unconscious Mme Daae already was, with the intention of returning to Paris to make report to the justices. This appeared too much for the viscount however who, mounting his brother's horse, fled the scene never to return. It is still not known what became of the young man but he most certainly went abroad and no doubt pursued a career at sea as was his intention. As may be expected, his family renounced him utterly. So much for 'Raoul de Chagny.'

Christine Daae on the other hand, having been recovered by her husband, quit the stage due to nervous fatigue. They went to live in Sweden in the town which saw the birth of Erik Daae and his growth to manhood. It is of some consolation to me that M. and Mme Daae no longer inhabit this country or indeed this sphere (for they are both now deceased according to my knowledge), for it would surely be trying for them to see their names in print and their characters and misadventures depicted in such a disagreeable and repellent way. To suggest that Christine Daae preferred the attentions of that hot-blooded young rogue to the faithful devotion of her lawful husband is an insult to both the lady and her spouse. But even more insulting is the disgraceful characterization of Erik Daae as a vicious maniacal madman who preyed upon the Opera management as a blackmailer and devised hellish means of torture for countless unnamed victims in the Orient. I myself had the good fortune to meet M. Daae many years ago and found him to be a man of genuine honor and decency.

There is no secret passage from the artist's room to an underground lake, nor any house built into the walls of that great edifice; these are all fabrications by my former colleague to excite the minds of an unwitting public. And it fills me with dismay that he has blended these falsehoods with various elements of truth, such as the existence of a cellar where persons were imprisoned during the reign of the Commune, thus disguising where fact ends and arrant fantasy begins. I have met with several persons since the publication of his work who are now convinced of the existence of hollow columns and revolving mirrors in the Paris Opera and it has proved impossible to disabuse them of the deception. There are even those who insist on the existence of the Opera Ghost as a matter of established fact and have asked at the National Academy of Music to view his bodily remains; of course they are turned away with laughter. But surely this serves to illustrate the point that Leroux has succeeded in making fools of my fellow Parisians, a circumstance that I cannot allow to continue unchecked.

Thus I conclude my treatise. It is my sincere hope that readers of M. Gaston Leroux's work of fiction will remember the real life events that inspired his story and accord due honor to the blameless characters of Erik and Christine Daae. It is their due.

Jean-Marie Le Croze


End file.
